House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Thirteenth Report

THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE AND PUBLIC INQUIRIES

Consistency

26. We received evidence from a number of organisations and individuals complaining about the inconsistency of Inspectors' decision-making. The subjects were varied: prematurity ,[38] barn conversions,[39] gliding,[40] waste management,[41] enabling development,[42] Green Belt and building extensions[43] and above all a portfolio of cases in respect of rights of way.[44] In general, where inconsistency was identified as a problem, witnesses suggested that unclear Government policy was a prime cause.[45]

27. Three illustrations of the problem of inconsistency will suffice. Leeds City Council wrote of a recent case in which "two different Inspectors have reached opposite decisions on very similar proposals in the same street. This is not only difficult to understand, but does not improve confidence in Members and public alike in the planning appeals system. Unfortunately, it is seen as a lottery."[46] Further evidence is provided by John Andrews who writes of "a number of cases in which the approach of Inspectors to matters of law and interpretation of evidence has shown clear contradictions."[47] The Ramblers Association note a complaint from one of their members that "in general there seem to be large differences in the interpretation of evidence" and the Association go on to note that "RA staff have heard versions of this complaint dozens of times."[48] Similar problems were reported to us by the Open Spaces Society and the South Pennine Packhorse Trails Trust.[49]

28. Of course, such specific examples do not prove that Inspectors are often being inconsistent and any discussion of this matter must acknowledge the subjective nature of planning decisions. For some aspects of planning, particularly design issues, it will always be difficult to distinguish matters of judgement and preference from genuine inconsistency. The written evidence from the Inspectorate on this issue stated that "when complaints about inconsistent decisions are investigated, the Inspectorate most frequently finds that the cases cited are readily distinguishable one from another."[50] Similarly, when we put witnesses' concerns to the Chief Planning Inspector during oral evidence, he replied that he thought there was little more that they could do, that their training "is as good as we think we can make it."[51]

29. We received considerable evidence on the inconsistency of Inspectors' decisions. Although we could not determine for certain to what extent there is genuine inconsistency in the decisions being made, we were disappointed at the Inspectorate's reaction to this issue. As with so many aspects of their work, we are less concerned about the level of inconsistency than the Inspectorate's apparently high-handed attitude to people querying their decisions. It is critical that the Inspectorate works both to ensure consistency in Inspectors' decisions and to convince those outside the organisation that Inspectors' decisions are indeed consistent.

30. Complaints about inconsistent decisions in rights of way Inquiries were common in the evidence we received. In an address to the Planning Inspectorate conference in 1998, Richard Caborn noted the Government's intention to consult on procedure rules for rights of way inquiries.[52] We understand that such a consultation has not taken place. Problems are clearly continuing with this type of inquiry and we recommend that the Government fulfill its commitment to consult on procedure rules for rights of way inquiries.

Procedure and Conduct of Inquiries

31. It is difficult to disentangle concerns about the administrative processes of the Inspectorate from possible problems with the procedures and management of inquiries. There are around two hundred different types of case and some appear to suffer from more difficulties than others, notably rights of way inquiries. We heard some suggestions for improvements to the way that cases are handled by the Inspectorate.

32. Some witnesses noted approvingly the reforms made in civil procedures, as drawn up by Lord Woolf, which have brought greater involvement by decision makers at an early stage and also place emphasis on the parties revealing their arguments at an early stage so that attention can be focussed on the areas of dispute.[53] Certainly, there are similarities between civil procedures and planning appeals: not least that both have been dogged by problems of timeliness. Witnesses suggested reforms to the planning appeal system which are analogous to the Woolf reforms such as the greater use of pre-inquiry statements,[54] giving Inspectors greater powers to speed up the process and more detailed guidelines for procedures at inquiries.[55] We also heard suggestions for the taping or filming of inquiries,[56] the greater use of weekend and evening sessions,[57] and the use of pre-inquiry sessions.

33. One specific suggestion made was for better 'case-management' of inquiries by Inspectors, so that a single Inspector takes a more proactive involvement in a case from a very early point. The theory is that this ensures that the Inspector fully understands the issues of a case and the parties to the inquiry are working with a single Inspector and can build up a relationship with him or her. We understand that the Inspectorate aims to make this happen whenever possible but that timetabling issues mean that sometimes an Inspector has to be changed at short notice. We recommend that the Inspectorate aims to case manage an increasing proportion of cases with Inspectors being allocated to a case at the earliest possible date. There are clear advantages for the Inspector, the parties to the inquiry and, ultimately, the quality of decision made. We anticipate that, as the Inspectorate's computer-based systems are introduced, it should become easier to do this.

34. The purpose of an inquiry is two-fold: it is both to reach a rational planning decision and to allow the various parties to have their concerns heard. Inevitably, there is some tension between these two aims: some witnesses called for a streamlining of the inquiry process, with less time given to the parties to make their case whilst others suggested that the process was currently dominated by lawyers, somewhat inaccessible and with insufficient time given to parties to make their case.

35. We heard that inquiries could be made more streamlined by Inspectors adopting a "more interventionist" approach.[58] However, caution must be exercised by Inspectors if an inquiry is to fulfill both its aims. The legalistic nature of inquiries provoked a good deal of comment: as Professor Malcolm Grant noted, "the extensive participation by lawyers in inquiries has inevitably led to their moulding the process in their own image"[59] and other witnesses described the inquiry process as "too cumbersome."[60] Whilst it is generally accepted that inquiries work best when the public involvement is significant, the legalistic nature of inquiries almost undoubtedly acts as a deterrent to this. The other main impact is the potential imbalance between the parties where one can afford legal representation but the other cannot.[61] Although the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions write that Inspectors "are trained not to be influenced by the professional expertise of the representatives of other parties",[62] we are unconvinced that this has much effect. It is inevitable in planning cases where substantial sums of money or environmental impacts will result from decisions that parties try to avail themselves of expert witnesses and advocates who can present their cases most effectively.

36. There are two principal options to overcome this problem: ensure that all parties can afford adequate representation or try to limit the formal, legalistic nature of the inquiry system. Although inquiries are often legalistic, we do not believe that this is necessarily a problem: the analysis of an issue is often aided by the involvement of professionals. We stress that it remains the responsibility of the Inspector to ensure that parties without legal representation at an inquiry are not disadvantaged.

37. The Royal Town Planning Institute currently operate a scheme called Planning Aid, in which individual planners give up their spare time to assist members of the public on a voluntary basis. The scheme has received a small amount of funding from Government but the current capacity and coverage of the scheme fall well short of demand.[63] We recommend that the Government fund a more extensive Planning Aid Scheme so that assistance can be offered to parties without access to representation at the larger inquiries.

38. Another concern about the conduct of inquiries centred upon the Inspectorate's general attitude to the need for development. In particular, past experience could be considered to demonstrate that the Inspectorate may have had a 'pro-development' culture, particularly during the period in which a system of 'planning by appeal' seemed to be taking place. The Council for the Protection of Rural England implied that this may be continuing, in noting a number of appeal decisions where "it appears the views of Inspectors are out of step with the latest developments in Government policy."[64] However, the Royal Town Planning Institute suggested that there was no clear pattern in the attitudes held by Inspectors in that they did not consider older Inspectors to be more pro-development than their younger colleagues.[65]

Recruitment, Pay and Conditions

39. There has been an ongoing industrial dispute within the Inspectorate over pay and conditions. More than 30% of Inspectors voted to take strike action less than a year ago and we were told that there remains a "deep sense of anger".[66] We were informed that the pay of Inspectors is somewhat below that for many comparable positions of responsibility in the civil service.[67] Against this, the Chief Planning Inspector and the Minister emphasised that the Inspectorate did not have a recruitment or retention problem and that they saw no reason to undertake a review of salaries.[68] In turn, the Inspectors' union, the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, argued that the number of applicants for vacancies were falling and that, without increased salaries and improved conditions, it would become increasingly difficult to attract and retain the necessary calibre of staff.[69]

40. We took limited evidence on this matter but the fact that this dispute has now, in effect, been ongoing for some years is a source of disappointment to us. This is particularly worrying since the focus of the dispute is now on the installation of computer links between the Inspectorate and Inspectors' homes.[70] This is a critical component of improving the Inspectorate's efficiency and we urge both sides to seek a swift resolution to the pay dispute.

41. The Inspectorate remains an organisation heavily dominated by men. The proportion of women Inspectors is just 12%,[71] and the Chief Planning Inspector told us that there was just one Inspector from an ethnic minority.[72] The Inspectorate has to draw from a profession which has a low proportion of both women and ethnic minorities. However, representation of these groups within the Inspectorate is significantly lower even than in the planning profession as a whole. The proportion of women of age 36 and over within the planning profession, for example, is 18%.[73]

42. The primary consideration in recruitment is clearly expertise for the job. In the case of the Inspectorate there is a particular need to ensure that the highest calibre staff are available so that confidence in inspectors' decisions is sustained. There is also a need for the Inspectorate to demonstrate that it has the institutional capacity to reflect a cross-section of interests and of society. We therefore welcome the fact that the Inspectorate has acknowledged the issue and in 1999 set up a task force to examine ways of encouraging more women and people from ethnic minorities into the Inspectorate. A supplementary memorandum from the Inspectorate sets out the actions which it proposes to take as a result of the report of this task force.[74] These actions appear to be common-sense and may offer a long-term solution to the problem. We expect that the actions proposed by the Inspectorate to increase diversity amongst its staff will be acted upon. Furthermore, we recommend that other bodies involved with planning, including the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, work to ensure that all sections of the community have the opportunity to join the planning profession.

Transparency and Technology

43. In the evidence we received, there was a recurrent theme of the difficulties in obtaining information about the way in which the Inspectorate operates, both in a general sense and as it relates to the details of specific cases. For example, the Local Government Association noted that complaints to the Inspectorate seemed to disappear into a "black box."[75] The Council for the Protection of Rural England commented that "there is a relative paucity of publicly available information by which the Inspectorate's performance can be assessed. For example, it is very difficult to obtain useful appeal statistics broken down by policy and geographical area."[76]

44. The attitude of the Chief Planning Inspector seemed a little defensive: when we asked him about the possibility of putting training material on the Internet, he responded that this may be possible but that:

"I would not want people in inquiries challenging Inspectors on the grounds they had not complied with paragraph 32 of Chapter 9"[77]

We were told that the Inspectorate's watch-word was 'professionalism'[78] and, of course, this is not in question. However, professionalism alone is no longer enough: it is now equally important for a public body to keep people informed and to ensure a genuine openness surrounds its actions, as well as acting appropriately. There have clearly been improvements in the transparency of the Inspectorate's work in recent years, notably the introduction of the Planning Inspectorate Journal.

45. The need for openness in all the Inspectorate's work cannot be over-emphasised. Inspectors wield considerable power and all aspects of the Inspector's knowledge and decision-making process should be open to scrutiny. It is likely that greater transparency will ultimately yield increased trust from those involved in the planning process. There are many aspects to this and it will, in effect, amount to something of a change of culture for the Inspectorate. We found that the Inspectorate's approach to providing information was a reticent one and we are concerned that it retains the attitude of "a very secretive organisation".[79] It is critical that the Inspectorate overcomes this reluctance to embrace openness and transparency of operation if it is to satisfy the public that it is operating in a fair and professional manner.

46. One of the most important aspects of promoting transparency is greater development of the web-pages of the Inspectorate. The Internet lends itself to updating information on planning appeals as it allows the clear and immediate marking of changes in information or status about an appeal and can also be used to present large amounts of information in a readily accessible format. The Royal Town Planning Institute and the Local Government Association were amongst witnesses calling for greater use of the Internet to keep people informed of the progress of planning appeals.[80]

47. We have examined the Inspectorate's re-launched web-site and were rather disappointed by the absence of many categories of useful information which could be made available. In particular, we can see no good reason for the following not to be included in the web-site:

Copies of handbooks/guidance about different types of appeal;
A full set of the policy guidance given to Inspectors;
A list of all current appeals;
All appeal decision letters; and
Details of forthcoming pre-inquiry meetings.

We were disappointed to be told by the Chief Inspector that it would be late 2001 before Inspectors were fully linked up from home to head office. We are baffled as to why it should take several months after moving offices in Spring 2001 to establish this system. Similarly, we are concerned that it will be a "couple of years" before it is possible to submit proofs of evidence electronically and before the case-tracking system is available to the public.[81] Once again, we can see no good reason for such delays.

48. We were pleased to see that the Planning Inspectorate has been awarded £3 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund to develop an Internet planning system.[82] We anticipate that this will help improve the flow of information into and out of the Planning Inspectorate and particularly welcome the development of a national information service on planning matters.

Complaints

49. In 1998/99, the Planning Inspectorate received 1,872 complaints. The reasons for complaint can be divided into three categories: those relating to the administration of pre- and post-appeal matters, the handling of the appeal itself and, most importantly, the final judgement of the Inspector. Many witnesses were disappointed with the way in which their complaints were handled by the Inspectorate and the outcome of their complaint. There appear to be two separate but linked issues here: the options available to the Inspectorate to address justified complaints and the approach that the Inspectorate adopts when dealing with complaints.

OPTIONS TO DEAL WITH JUSTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANT COMPLAINTS

50. On receiving a complaint, the Inspectorate works to determine first whether a complaint is justified or not and then, if it is deemed to be justified, whether it is significant, ie material to the Inspector's decision. A complaint classified as justified does not necessarily indicate a serious error in the appeal process: such a complaint can arise from a simple error of fact which has no implications for the quality of decision, for example, using the wrong address or mistaking east for west. Clearly, the most serious complaints are those which are finally categorised as 'justified and significant': in 1998/99, the Inspectorate so categorised 137 of the complaints from the total of 1,872 received.

51. The problem is that, even where a complaint is both justified and significant, the Inspectorate has no direct powers to rectify the situation. A decision once issued is final and cannot be amended by the Inspectorate. The only way in which the decision of an Inspector can be changed is by judicial challenge in the High Court, a lengthy and costly procedure and hardly an option for many local authorities or small voluntary groups. There was a broad consensus from witnesses that this situation was extremely unsatisfactory.[83] The problems here are both administrative and substantive. In cases where there is a clear and significant error acknowledged by the Inspectorate, the only route for a remedy is judicial review with the Inspectorate submitting to judgement. This is unduly legalistic and cumbersome and should be achievable by simpler means.

52. Of course, there may be cases where a significant error has been made but the Inspectorate disagree that this is the case. Here again, the only option open to the complainant is to make a High Court challenge. There may be cases where, although an error has been made, the Court is reluctant to intervene on the Inspector's judgement. Even on substantive issues, a challenge to the High Court is a risky business and potentially very expensive to the losing party (increasingly so if cases are taken through the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords). The Local Government Association described the problems experienced:

Similarly, the South Pennine Packhorse Trust commented that "The only recourse currently available is through the courts. This is not a course of action open to Trust, or to most members of the public representing users' interests. As it operates now the public inquiry system is failing the public badly."[85]

53. We considered the merits of two options to remedy this situation. Firstly, the Inspectorate could be given the power to re-open an inquiry where a decision was found to be unsound. Many witnesses considered this to be the most attractive option and these included both the Chief Planning Inspector and the Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate (APOS).[86] The Minister acknowledged that "in certain cases, it may be appropriate for the case to be revisited".[87] We accept that this option would require primary legislation to introduce but its strength would be that it is capable of dealing with most of the circumstances in which complaints are not satisfactorily remedied.

54. Another way of addressing this problem was proposed by the Local Government Association and would involve circulating a draft of the decision letter to all parties with a short period allowed for comment.[88] This option would enable errors of fact to be corrected before the final decision was made and also allow the Inspector to re-consider where a robust challenge is being offered to the draft decision. However, this option could cause significant overall delay to the appeal system since many prospective 'losers' would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by claiming there to be errors in the Inspector's report. This could be expected to clog up the system for very little benefit, with the Inspectorate spending considerable amounts of time revisiting perfectly wellargued drafts of decisions.

55. It is unacceptable that there is no ready and accessible mechanism to correct errors made by Inspectors in their final decisions, short of Judicial Review in the High Court. We recommend that primary legislation be introduced to allow a planning appeal to be re-opened where a material error is discovered or may have occurred.[89]

THE WAY THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE DEALS WITH COMPLAINTS

56. We were somewhat surprised at the proportion of complaints which the Inspectorate find to be without cause: out of the 1,872 received in 1998/99, 1,735 were rejected as being 'unjustified'. At more than 92% of the total, this does seem to be a remarkably high proportion of complaints which are judged to be without basis. We noted with concern the comments of the Advisory Panel on Standards, which found in examining 42 'unjustified complaints' that several cases "should have been treated as justified because they appeared to involve clear errors", describing these as "significant discrepancies".[90] We are concerned about the misclassification of complaints as 'unjustified' and recommend that the Advisory Panel on Standards for the Inspectorate return to this issue in their next report. We consider the use of complaints statistics as a target later in the report.

57. The way that the Inspectorate deals with complaints is at least partially dictated by the options available to it. Not only is it unable to alter or amend a decision in any way but any indication that a significant error may have been made could lay the decision open to High Court challenge. English Heritage described the response given to complaints as "intentionally uninformative".[91] We can understand the Inspectorate's reluctance to concede mistakes in these circumstances, but this highlights the difficulty of the Inspectorate being the adjudicator on complaints against itself.

58. In the evidence given to us, there was the unmistakable perception that the way the Inspectorate dealt with complaints was inadequate and left complainants largely uninformed and disappointed. The Local Government Association told us that "If one complains to the Inspectorate, there is, again, the black box effect; there is no direct response from the Inspector who made the decision."[92] The Rights of Way Review Committee emphasised that "complaints are not treated seriously" and went on to note that their members have "largely given up complaining to the Inspectorate about poor decisions because the Inspectorate will not discuss their concerns."[93] Similarly, the South Pennine Packhorse Trails Trust describe the response to complaints as follows:

Representatives from the Royal Town Planning Institute agreed:

"The public who complain do not really get any feeling that they have had a clear response. The answer from the Inspectorate is 'We cannot change the decision'. If the process was more open and more transparent, possibly if there was an external body doing it, there may well be more public confidence."[95]

59. These statements sit rather uneasily with the declaration of the Chief Planning Inspector to us:

60. Other comments by the Chief Planning Inspector appeared to show a complacency about the number and nature of complaints. Given the sheer number and range of concerns expressed to us about complaints to the Inspectorate, we found the Inspector's attitude a little disturbing. In particular, we were unconvinced of the merits of the argument that, because there is always a 'loser' in a planning appeal, one is more likely to receive complaints.[97] It can equally be argued that the increased likelihood of the losing party making a complaint is balanced out by the reduced likelihood that the winning party will not complain. Further, believing that year-on-year increases of 7%, then 9% during the last two years are the result of a greater willingness to complain seems a dangerous assumption to make.[98] The complacency seems to be present through the ranks of Inspectors also: it is perhaps telling that one Inspector told us that he was " not aware that anyone is unhappy with the way that complaints are dealt with."[99]

61. Many people perceive the Inspectorate to be responding inadequately to their complaints: that the handling is completely internal and that the Inspectorate is being cautious in its response to complaints appear to be contributory causes of the dissatisfaction. The Human Rights Act 1998 may have implications for the mechanisms and we consider the merits of having an independent body to deal with complaints later in the report. However, in advance of any structural changes to the way that complaints are handled, the following recommendations should be implemented immediately to improve the handling of complaints. The attitude of the Inspectorate to complaints and complainants in practice is inappropriate and unjustifiably high-handed. Although the Inspectorate has limited options for dealing with complaints, there can be no excuse for the Inspectorate not admitting where it has been at fault, or not giving a complete response to a complaint. We recommend that the Inspectorate work to establish a better attitude to complainants along with greater transparency and openness in responding to complaints.

62. There are also some concerns about the length of time taken for the Inspectorate to respond to a complaint. This is particularly important since any High Court challenge to a decision must be made within 6 weeks. Last year, APOS noted one example in which the Inspectorate did not respond to a complaint until after the 6 weeks period had expired.[100] We recommend that the Inspectorate be set a target of responding substantively to all complaints within 14 days. It should keep a register of the cases in which it fails to achieve this target along with details of the reasons for failure. The Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate should examine this register as part of their annual reporting procedures.

Quality Control

63. The Planning Inspectorate makes use of a range of measures to monitor and improve the quality of its work. These include:

monitoring all decisions by new Inspectors for a period;

annual evaluation of Inspectors' Inquiryholding skills;

sending Inspectors on training courses from time to time and to an annual weeklong course for virtually all Inspectors;

reviewing a sample of all Inspectors decisions 'de novo' from written evidence, assessed for factual accuracy and adequacy of reasoning;

conducting customer satisfaction surveys;

timeliness targets;

analysis of complaints, plus acting on mistakes to ensure they are not repeated;

the test that 99% of all decisions issued should be free from justified complaint;

the test that 99% of the annual intake of cases should be free from justified complaint about the procedural aspects of cases;

investigations by the Advisory Panel on Standards in the Planning Inspectorate.

There seems to be little doubt that the Inspectorate has an earnest and largely effective approach to ensuring that its work is of a high quality. The most high-profile measures of quality assessment are the timeliness targets and the test that 99% of decisions issued should be free from justified complaint and it is the latter which became a particular focus of our inquiry.

64. Although the Inspectorate has consistently met the 99% target, witnesses were generally agreed that it gives little clue as to the quality of the Inspectorate's work. Even the Advisory Panel commented:

"we have consistently pointed out that as a complaintsoriented target it does not actually measure or identify defects in the quality of the Inspectorate's service. Moreover, as a numerical target it is sensitive to changes in the propensity to complain on the part of the Inspectorate's customers".[

101

The Chief Planning Inspector also noted the inadequacy of the 99% target but told us that many unsuccessful attempts had been made to find a better measure of quality performance.[102]

65. The most critical aspect of quality for the Inspectorate must be the quality of decision making. The 99% test does not distinguish complaints based upon the decision of the Inspector from complaints about the handling of inquiries. Further, as we have already noted, a 'justified complaint' may simply signify a misspelling or another simple, but relatively unimportant, mistake by the Inspector. The limitations of the 99% test are also apparent from the Inspectorate's own internal checking process which, from a representative sample of cases, found that around 5% of cases could have been subject to justified complaint, i.e. 5 times greater than the proportion of actual justified complaints received.[103] This shows conclusively that the 99% test is essentially a measure of the visibility of errors and people's propensity to complain and its correlation with quality must be considered a limited one.

66. Although witnesses generally agreed that the quality performance measures were inadequate, few put forward alternative suggestions. The Council for the Protection of Rural England suggested that measures should aim to assess the contribution of the Inspectorate towards achieving sustainable development.[104] Although we are entirely sympathetic with this aim, we consider that the job of the Inspectorate is to uphold planning policy, rather than focus on one or other of the Government's policies.

67. Leaving aside the merits of the 99% target in measuring quality, its use is also limited because it is applied solely as a headline measure of the total work of the Inspectorate. Given the range and variability of different types of inquiry, along with the priorities and specialisms involved in the Inspectorate's work, there may be considerable merit in using a finer grain on the 99% target and applying it to at least the 12 main types of case work and also breaking it down by type of procedure (written, hearing or inquiry). This would enable any trends or problems in particular aspects of the Inspectorate's work to be spotted at an early stage. For example, rights of way inquiries provoked a good deal of complaints by witnesses and a broken down 99% target would have revealed this type of inquiry as a developing problem.[105] There is also an argument that significant complaints (i.e. those that concern the Inspector's quality of reasoning) should be separated out since these are the closest complaints-based proxy for quality performance.[106]

68. The primary method of assessing quality in the Inspectorate should be by re-visiting decisions to check for errors. The Inspectorate's own internal checking process represents a rigorous test and the Government should publish targets for the error-rate discovered. It is clear that the target for 99% of the Inspectorate's work to be free of justified complaint gives no measure of the quality of Inspectors' work. Nevertheless, we recommend that the 99% target is applied separately to at least the 12 main types of work undertaken by the Inspectorate and the 3 types of procedure (written representations, hearings and inquiries) for both significant and insignificant justified complaints. Further suggestions for breaking down the 99% target are made in Annex I.

69. We recommend that three additional steps be taken to aid quality control: Inspectors should be required to make site visits to a sample of developments one year after their completion. This should enable Inspectors to gain a clear idea of the implications of their decisions and any possible improvements in the wording of decisions. We also recommend that a comments form be distributed to all participants at the start of each inquiry, to encourage greater feedback on both procedural and substantive matters. Finally, we recommend that customer surveys are undertaken in relation to rights of way cases.

38 Ev p51 (HC364-II) Back

39 Ev p26 (HC364-II) Back

40 Ev p41 (HC364-II) Back

41 Ev p55 (HC364-II) Back

42 Ev p77 (HC364-II) Back

43 Ev p76 (HC364-II) Back

44 Ev pp7, 16, 61 (HC364-II) Back

45 Ev pp21, 33, 35 (HC364-II) Back

46 Ev p90 (HC364-II) Back

47 Ev p28 (HC364-II) Back

48 Ev p17 (HC364-II) Back

49 Ev pp9, 59 (HC364-II) Back